In a significant ruling, the Dharwad bench of the Karnataka High Court has imposed a personal cost of Rs 50,000 on an executive engineer from Haveri for illegally issuing a second tender for a project that had already been awarded. Justice M Nagaprasanna termed the officer's actions as "illegal and high-handed."
The Court's Stern Order and Personal Penalty
Justice Nagaprasanna directed that the penalty amount of Rs 50,000 must be paid from the officer's personal funds as litigation costs to the petitioner, Gopi Gollar. Gollar is a Class-A government contractor from Ranebennur taluk in Haveri district. The court's order emphasized that the executive engineer had no authority to re-notify the tender after the contract was finalized.
Chronology of the Tender Controversy
The dispute centered around a project for the 'Construction, commissioning and operation with maintenance for one year of a 3 KLD faecal sludge treatment plant (FSTP)' at Balabmeed gram panchayat in Hangal taluk. Initially, the executive engineer, acting on behalf of the rural drinking water and sanitation department, issued the tender. Gopi Gollar emerged as the successful bidder and was issued a formal work order on May 27, 2025.
However, in a surprising move on September 9, 2025, the same executive engineer's office, this time representing the rural development and panchayat raj department, issued a fresh tender notice for the identical work. This new tender was reserved exclusively for contractors from the Scheduled Caste category, effectively blocking Gopi from starting the work he had already been awarded.
Court's Reasoning: A Concluded Contract Cannot Be Overturned
After examining the records, Justice Nagaprasanna concluded that the original tender process had reached its logical end. The court observed that once the agreement was signed between the rural drinking water department and the petitioner, all rights were legally crystallized in favour of Gopi Gollar. The only step remaining was the physical commencement of the work.
The judge strongly criticized the executive engineer's decision to spring into action and re-notify the tender. "The executive engineer...could not have thereafter sprung into action and re-notified a tender for the same work, dubbing it to be reserved for the Scheduled Caste category, thereby virtually upturning a concluded contract," the order stated. This action illegally prevented the petitioner from executing the awarded work.
Justice Nagaprasanna underscored a fundamental principle: "A tender cannot be notified twice for the same work." He declared the second tender unsustainable and ordered its obliteration. The court noted that this was not a mere procedural error, as the officer was fully aware of the concluded first tender, making his act deliberately illegal and high-handed.
The ruling serves as a strict warning to government officials against arbitrarily cancelling or reissuing tenders after due process is complete, safeguarding the rights of contractors who participate in good faith.
